Pip Courtney talks to a young filmmaker who has attempted to capture the often polarised animal welfare debate in a documentary called 'The Animal Condition.'

Transcript

PIP COURTNEY, PRESENTER: One of the biggest changes to farming in Australia over the past decade has been the growing recognition - or some would say, increasing controversy - over animal welfare.

It's a debate which has angered many in the rural community, who feel they've been unfairly demonised. But it's also an issue farmers can't ignore, as an increasing number of consumers opt for products promising higher animal welfare standards.

One young filmmaker has attempted to capture this often polarised debate in a documentary which premiered last night.

The Animal Condition, by filmmaker Michael Dahlstrom, charts the journey of animal welfare in Australia from a fringe issue to major community concern.

I caught up with Michael Dahlstrom late last week as he was preparing for the film's debut at the Melbourne Film Festival.

Michael Dahlstrom, welcome to Landline.

MICHAEL DAHLSTROM, FILM-MAKER: Thanks very much for having me.

PIP COURTNEY: What was the catalyst for you and three friends that you went to NIDA with to make this documentary?

MICHAEL DAHLSTROM: This documentary began when myself, along with my three friends - Ande Cunningham, Sarah-Jane McAllan and Augusta Miller - were watching a video on YouTube, actually. We came across the video by accident and it showed some really brutal footage, I've got to say, of some animals inside a farm. From there, we decided that we wanted to know more, we wanted to find out if this was - what we were seeing on TV was systemic or whether it was just a once-off.

PIP COURTNEY: And given that catalyst, do you take a side or push an agenda in this documentary?

MICHAEL DAHLSTROM: In the very beginning, what we were doing was making an animal welfare film, but as we continued to film, that changed and we started to become more and more objective, until by the end, we are not taking any side whatsoever and what we're doing, which is quite difficult - sorry, which is quite different with this documentary is that we're actually leaving it open to the audience to make up their own opinion.

PIP COURTNEY: Well you say that you play a straight bat, but animals rights group Voiceless gave you an $11,000 grant. Does that mean you've taken the animal rights side?

MICHAEL DAHLSTROM: In the beginning, we definitely had an animal welfare focus, as opposed to an animal rights focus. After that we decided - after we got the grant, we decided that we would fund the rest of the documentary ourselves, and then from there, both Voiceless and I've got to say Australian Pork Limited as well have been super-supportive in terms of introductions and helping us film and meet and get access to places that no-one's really got access to before.

PIP COURTNEY: One issue which flared up during filming was the sow stall issue and you feature a pork producer who was raided by activists. What was the impact on that farmer?

MICHAEL DAHLSTROM: The impact on that farmer was that he felt like he'd been subjected to a home invasion, and - look, to be honest, he really seemed like a broken man. His voice was shaking when we interviewed him.

PIP COURTNEY: And you went on a raid. Do you believe there's a place for undercover vision filmed by activists?

MICHAEL DAHLSTROM: What we covered was the impact that undercover footage had on public knowledge of animal welfare issues. So, for instance, if we look at the sow stall issue, what we see is a win-win situation where pork farmers have managed to get in contact with their customers, they've managed to, I guess, develop good, clean channels of communication with their customers in the city.

So - and also we have animal welfare activists as well who have got a win out of that as well, because the pigs have been taken out of the stalls and the pig farmers have something that they can really sell to their customers as well, which is pigs in group housing.

PIP COURTNEY: And what's your view about whether animal activists are a good part of this sort of debate?

MICHAEL DAHLSTROM: My view is that you need everyone to be involved in this debate. You need animal activists, you need farmers and you need politicians, but most importantly of all, you need the general public as well.

PIP COURTNEY: Do we even need extremists who are breaking the law and invading properties that are being legally run by farmers? Do we really need them to be part of the debate?

MICHAEL DAHLSTROM: I think what we need in this debate is transparency, and if undercover footage can help provide that transparency, then it has a part to play. The farmer that we're talking about in question, what upset him so much was that he had 44 activists come onto his property.

PIP COURTNEY: Well the live cattle trade ban happened during filming. Now some producers say the vision was a set-up. Did you find any evidence for that?

MICHAEL DAHLSTROM: We spoke to a - one cattle producer in particular who really did believe that it was a set-up, and at the time as well, if you remember, Senator Chris Back also seemed to think it was a set-up. But then we had conflicting views as well from people within the industry, as well as activists and politicians, who believed that it had been going on for a long time.

PIP COURTNEY: Well the documentary is promoted as a foray into the murky ethics of animal farming. Do you find the ethics of farming murky?

MICHAEL DAHLSTROM: No, I don't find the - necessarily find the ethics murky. I think what's murky is, I guess, the mire of opinion out there. What we have really investigated has been the grey areas, the nuance, if you will, of opinions, so everything from animal welfare activists to farmers and politicians.

PIP COURTNEY: Did you find anything murky about the ethics of animal rights groups, illegal activities sometimes carried out, sometimes they hang on to vision of animals being abused, they traumatise people operating legal businesses? Do you sometimes find their ethics murky?

MICHAEL DAHLSTROM: What I've tried to do with this is not actually make judgment on the practices of anyone. What I've tried to do with this film, what we as a group of filmmakers have tried to do, is present all of the sides of the story so that audiences can make up their own decisions.